Skip to content
Plinth

· Public charity

New Hampshire Alliance of Regional Development Corporations Inc

An entity with membership of new hampshire economic development corporations sharing resources and information on a state wide basis.

$257k
Granted FY2024still arriving
9
Grants FY2024still arriving
1
States reached
$57k
Largest
01What you fund
0193% classified

What you funded, over time

Every grant clustered by its grantee’s IRS cause code (NTEE), by year — across FY20172024.

Community Improvement$1.4MOther$114k
02FY2024 · 9 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k8 grants · $201k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $57k
$21,998
Median grant
1
States reached
$11k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$56,925
COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$39,000
BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL$38,000
MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$23,320
MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC$21,998
WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$21,203
GRAFTON REGION DEVELOPMENT CORP$19,000
ROCKINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT$19,000
COASTAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP$19,000
02The need
03

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 7%. 79% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 7%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $38k → 5%MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $23k → 9%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $38k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $57k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $25k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $40k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $39k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $24k → 5%MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 9%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $32k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $32k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCKINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $28k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON REGION DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $24k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $21k → 9%WENTWORTH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%GRAFTON REGION DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 10%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCKINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%SOUTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 9%COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP: $19k → 13%ROCHINGHAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $19k → 5%BELKNAP COUNTY ECONOMIC DEV COUNCIL: $19k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $25k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $22k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $22k → 9%MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC: $20k → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

03Your edge
repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

100%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.
$1.6M · 10 repeat orgs$0 to everyone else

10 repeat relationships — 9 still active in FY2024, 1 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
0

Total granted

$1.6M
$0

Still filing today

90%
0%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • SE
    STRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    8× · 2017–2024 · $230k · revenue +40%
  • RE
    Rockingham Economic Development Corp
    8× · 2017–2024 · $178k · revenue +22%
  • CE
    COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI
    8× · 2017–2024 · $172k · revenue +513%

Funded once

    Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

    04Your field

    The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

    1
    Green Mountain Economic Development Corp

    To foster and develop economic vitality and prosperity consistent with the goals of the communities we serve.

    2
    Northeast Kingdom Development Corporation

    Fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location of business enterprises within the States of Vermont and New Hampshire, and having its principal purpose be industrial and economic development of one or more political…

    Employment
    3
    The Economic Development Corporation Serving Fresno County

    To promote and maintain a strong business climate throughout the city and to foster a healthy and sustainable economy for the benefit of the entire community.

    4
    Northern Maine Development Commission

    To serve the northern Maine region with effective regional community planning and economic development.

    Community Improvement
    5
    Scotland County Economic Development Corporation

    To promote the growth of the local economy of Scotland County and City of Laurinburg through job creation, the investment in business property and infrastructure to facilitate economic growth and job creation.

    Employment
    6
    Cozad Development Corporation

    Foster Business Development in Cozad, NE

    7
    Economic Development Council of Western Massachusetts Inc

    To stimulate and facilitate a vigorous regional economy, encouraging and sustaining capital investment and quality job growth.

    8
    Belknap County Economic Development Council Inc

    The mission of the council is to preserve and create employment opportunities, and provide educational and business development assistance in belknap county, new hampshire.

    9
    Cowlitz Economic Development Council

    Foster Growth in the Community

    10
    Skowhegan Economic Development Corp

    To foster, encourage and assist in the location, settlement or resettlement of industry and recreational, agricultural,and other business enterprises in the Town of Skowhegan and in the County of Somerset.

    Community Improvement
    11
    Addison County Economic Development Corporation

    To create an entrepreneurial and innovative environment, nurturing business to launch, grow, and thrive.

    12
    Wayne Economic Development Corporation

    The corporation was formed to lessen the burdens of government and act in the public interest; to facilitate economic activities throughout wayne county, ny including the location and expansion of civic, industrial and commercial…

    Community Improvement

    For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Grafton Regional Development Corporation and the most unlike its peers is Coos Economic Development Corporati. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

    04the grantee network

    10 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

    Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

    Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 20172025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover.

    0
    Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
    2
    Early backer (in before they grew)
    9/10
    Grantees still filing
    6/10
    Grew since you first funded

    Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

    STRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $230,381 · Community ImprovementSTRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONRockingham Economic Development Corp — $178,345 · Community ImprovementRockingham Economic Development CorpCOOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI — $172,000 · Community ImprovementCOOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATINEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INC — $171,000 · Community ImprovementNEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INCGRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $164,467 · Community ImprovementGRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONMT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL — $154,671 · Community ImprovementMT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCILCAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP — $153,000 · Community ImprovementCAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPWentworth Economic Development Corp — $149,800 · Community ImprovementWentworth Economic Development CorpMONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP — $62,386 · Community ImprovementCoastal Economic Development Corporation — $114,000 · Other
    Community Improvement$1,436,050Other$114,000

    Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

    25%50%75%100%$1.0Mgrantee revenue →↑ your share of their budgetSTRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $230,381 over 8y, 5.1% of budgetRockingham Economic Development Corp — $178,345 over 8y, 2.1% of budgetCOOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI — $172,000 over 8y, 16% of budgetNEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INC — $171,000 over 8y, 15% of budgetGRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — $164,467 over 8y, 8.5% of budgetMT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL — $154,671 over 8y, 17% of budgetCAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP — $153,000 over 7y, 4.1% of budgetWentworth Economic Development Corp — $149,800 over 8y, 10% of budgetCoastal Economic Development Corporation — $114,000 over 6y, 10% of budgetMONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP — $62,386 over 4y, 0.7% of budget
    Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

    A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

    • Who funds STRAFFORD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    • Who funds Rockingham Economic Development Corp
    • Who funds COOS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATI
    • Who funds NEW HAMPSHIRE ALLIANCE OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS INC
    • Who funds GRAFTON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
    • Who funds MT WASHINGTON VALLEY ECONOMIC COUNCIL
    • Who funds CAPITAL REGION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP
    • Who funds Wentworth Economic Development Corp
    • Who funds Coastal Economic Development Corporation
    • Who funds MONADNOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP

    The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.

    New Hampshire Charitable FoundationNH13.2× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

    Open a dossier: New Hampshire Charitable Foundation

    Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

    Government reliance of your grantees

    Every dot is one organization New Hampshire Alliance of Regional Development Corporations Inc funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

    2024
    202122232425
    no gov · 00%1%5%11%20%your share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government
      no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
      0get no government money at all
      4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
      0rely on government for over half their income
      typical government reliance, FY2025

      Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.

      On method. Every financial figure here is read directly from IRS e-file XML — your own 990/990-PF and the multi-year returns of the 10 grantees we resolved across every year we hold, several hundred filings in all (a different count from the grant rows on the cover, which are one fiscal year)— each linked to its source. Grantee achievements and outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III); we read these as association with sustained funding — the foundation is one of several forces — suppress low-confidence name matches rather than guess, and say so where a figure rests on a single grant or filing. Not everything on this page is a filed figure, and the difference matters. Filed is what you reported on your return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears. How we build these →

      Generated from your IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

      Source object · view filing

      More from the funding graph